Radix Journal

Radix Journal

A radical journal

Author: Colin Liddell

Which Way MAGA Man?

Leading up to the election, Radix Journal will publish a symposium, “The Meaning of Trump,” drawing writers from across the Alt Right. This is New Alternative Right Editor Colin Liddell’s entry. We…

Leading up to the election, Radix Journal will publish a symposium, “The Meaning of Trump,” drawing writers from across the Alt Right. This is New Alternative Right Editor Colin Liddell’s entry.


We on the Alt-Right should never be naïve about politics, but many of us have crossed the line into pure shilling and simplistic cheerleading with Trump. I know I have.

What is really going on here is “the system” addressing its own failings through the unlikely medium of a reality TV star, property mogul, and ex-pussy grabber.

The active participants in this are mainly the globalist elites themselves, with the real tensions being between simplistic, old-style globalism and an evolution of that – imperfectly embodied in Trump – which seeks to modify and ameliorate its excesses by mixing in careful dosages of identitarianism, civic nationalism, multipolarity, and common sense.

The recent FBI bomb dropped on Hillary suggests that the jury is at least split on which way to go. The Global Elites tend to be busy people wrapped up in their affairs, but they also have finely attuned senses, and many of them can hear the whistling of the large meteor hurtling towards them, as Richard Wolstencroft observed in his article at our site, “Why the Globalist Elite Should Drop Hillary and Support Trump.”

The amount of debt sloshing around, the plight of Deutsche Bank, the instability of the EU, the cut-to-the-bone interest rates and sluggish or stagnant growth everywhere, Middle East tensions, and the constant hollowing out of the best societies is breeding a sense of looming dissatisfaction, danger, collapse, and even WWIII.

The early money of bumbling through this mess by doubling down on “the old formula” through a Clinton Presidency is now being replaced by the late bet of bumbling through by opting for Trump and thereby allying Globalism with elements that the Alt-Right approves of.

Are we really turning a corner with a Trump presidency or merely propping up a collapsing system for another few years? That remains the most important question.

No Comments on Which Way MAGA Man?

The Day the Music Un-Died

Music died around 1993. I was there at the funeral, on the staff of Riff Raff, a failing rock magazine that realized too late that, post-1993, the music biz would…

Music died around 1993. I was there at the funeral, on the staff of Riff Raff, a failing rock magazine that realized too late that, post-1993, the music biz would mainly be about recycling pieces of the corpse of the Great Tri-Decade (1963-93), when music was actually alive and capable of growth as a multi-dimensional form of cultural expression.

I must have had an intuition, as the column I was writing at the time was a troll-like humor page by the name of “The Fly Column.”

When the music died, I knew there would be consequences. First of all, I edged away from my own nascent career as a musician. Secondly, I realized that music journalism would only ever be a good for getting backstage at gigs and hanging out with famous people, not a way to make an actual living. But, of course, the death of music also had bigger consequences for society in general.

Since at least the 1950s, when rock n’ roll–the ur-form of the music style of the Great Tri-Decade–held sway, music had been the main system for defining and organizing youth.

In the movie Quadrophenia (1979), set in the 1960s, it was Mods and Rockers. Then there were hippies (including the Manson Family), glam, and heavy metal. In my own youth, I was a New Age Rocker with NWOBHM and prog leanings–in contrast to Poodle Rock or Hair Metal, while a lot of other kids identified as Goth or Punk, or were into the various sub-sects of druggy, dance music–Madchester . . . something or other.

So, the effective death of music in the 1990s also meant that the organizing principle of youth culture disappeared. Maggot forms of it–I am thinking here of grunge rock, Britpop, and various forms of thrash metal and rap-metal–lingered on through the ‘90s into the Zeroes, but the associated “tribes” were half-hearted at best. This was the time when youth realized that ID-ing through music was a joke–hence the rise of the atomized bedroom or basement culture of the Millennial age. The vacuum had been created, and the vacuum also had consequences. So, how was it filled?

One clue was in the name of the movement, with which I have now become associated, as a kind of “founding father”–its Alexander Hamilton or John Knox Witherspoon. Yes, I am referring to the Alt Right, and in particular the “Alt” part of the term, which to anyone from Gen-X evokes the whole idea of “alternative music”–namely music that was cool, detached, and grass-roots-up, rather than dictated by the profit motives and sleazy designs of the big record companies, the “Lügen-labels.”

This “Alt” aspect is what made the Alt-Right cool and worth belonging to, but also there was an odd sense of déjà vu in play. Here we were, some of us not so young, but existing on the kind of stretched teenage time that modern society makes possible, organizing as a kind of youth culture–only this time without actual music, for which blogs, podcasts, and memes soon became a substitute.

And like any music-based youth culture of the ‘60s to ‘90s period, we soon found ourselves splitting off into camps and having the occasional shindy or disagreement, like Mods and Rockers at the Brighton sea-front.

There were those of us who felt the need to impress with their technical proficiency, their grasp of heavy-hitting philosophy . . . Cue NRx and a few impressive “solos” on Evola or Heidegger.

Then there were the Hardcore Punk kids, who liked it hard and simple, the kind of morose little mofos that want to be body-slammed and pride themselves on being into more abrasive and unlistenable forms of music than each other. . . Cue The Daily Stormer, Iron March, and the ragged edges of TRS. This part of the Alt Right could conveniently be termed “Nazicore.”

Then between “the fire and ice”–to use an analogy from “Spinal Tap”(1984)–there is the “lukewarm water,” the equivalent of mainstream rock fans, those guys who admire the occasional prog exuberance or chuckle along ironically to the head-banging of Beavis and Butthead, but find their comfort zone somewhere between Guns N’ Roses, Dire Straits, and –ulp!– U2. These are the guys who will buy the records they like, even if they come from the big labels, but who are also prepared to shop around and “go Indie” if they have to.

The music-tribe analogy even extends to our gay disco and glam divas–Milo and co.–towards whom we cast either a tolerant and half-embarrassed glance or a withering glare and “Disco Sucks” malevolence.

Yes, take another look at that ever-fragmenting and multi-mutating organism called the Alt Right, and tell me, is it really that different from the music tribes and sub-tribes of the Grand Tri-Decade? In place of the music and the fashion, we now have metapolitics, but then we are also putting the “fash” back into fashion, and thanks to the likes of Paddy Tarleton, Walt-Bismarck, White Hot Takes, Xurious, and others, we even have the music.

No Comments on The Day the Music Un-Died

The Big Bern

Once upon a time, when America was a semi-sane country, Presidents were elected because voters liked their policies or their haircuts.

Those days are sadly gone. Now, people—OK, just White people —are supposed to vote for candidates to demonstrate their lack of hatred for the specific demographics that the candidates come from, be they women, Blacks, Jews, or gays.

Once upon a time, when America was a semi-sane country, Presidents were elected because voters liked their policies or their haircuts.

Those days are sadly gone. Now, people—OK, just White people —are supposed to vote for candidates to demonstrate their lack of hatred for the specific demographics that the candidates come from, be they women, Blacks, Jews, or gays. 

Vote Hillary to prove you’re not a misogynist (even though Hillary is an extremely unlikable bitch), vote Obama—and now Carson—to prove that you think all Black people are wonderful all the time (and if you don’t, you’re a fucking r**ist scumbag!).

This is certainly the implicit tone of the recent Salon article, Is America ready for a Jewish president?: The Anti-Semitism Facing Bernie Sanders, where the idea of voting for Sanders is presented as a way for evil White Christians (and post-Christians) to finally get over the centuries and centuries of racism and anti-Semitism of their ancestors:

[T]he simple fact that Sanders is Jewish may become an issue regardless of how closely he identifies with his background. Although the most recent poll studying American prejudices in presidential campaigns found that an overwhelming majority would be willing to vote for a Jew (91 percent), the number wasn’t always that high. Back in 1937, only 46 percent of Americans said they’d be willing to vote for a Jewish presidential candidate; 30 years later, that number had only increased to 82 percent.

If you ask me, 91 percent being prepared to vote for a member of a semi-invisible minority that has enormous elite power and a massive track record of distorting the financial, cultural, and political sectors to serve its collective ethnic interests is ridiculously high—yet more evidence that White, non-Jewish Americans lack healthy racial awareness—but apparently this is way too low for Salon, which is clearly pushing the idea of turning elections into weird purification rituals for stupid, guilt-tripped Whites:

In the end, it will be impossible to determine whether a Jewish presidential candidate can win in this country without actually testing that hypothetical scenario in the real world. As such, perhaps it would be best to prepare for such a candidacy by establishing a set of rules pertaining to how Jewish candidates should be treated. Three immediately come to mind:

First, unless a Jewish candidate has said or done something to call their loyalty into question, charges based on the idea that they are somehow “dual” in their sentiments need to be dismissed out of hand as anti-Semitic… Additionally, we must be especially wary of arguments that are based in legitimate positions but can be used as a cover for anti-Jewish hatred. Anti-Zionist rhetoric can bleed into anti-Semitism when it disproportionately singles out Israel in comparison to other countries, compares Israel to Nazi Germany, or attacks Israel in general rather than singling out specific government policies… Finally, we must accept that Christian privilege defines our political life in ways that have yet to be fully appreciated.

Although Salon is trying hard to construct a watertight container for their political blank check to all Jewish candidates, it is already leaky in the case of Sanders, who, despite his supposed left-wingism and having a “role in American politics [that] is much more importantly defined by Vermont liberalism than anything else,” has consistently voted in ways that serve Jewish interests both on Israel and vetting the Fed.

No Comments on The Big Bern

Jihad vs. McWorld

Violence by its very nature has to be economical. Used indiscriminately, it loses its value and utility—in other words, it always exists in symbiosis. Only those who have used violence will understand this. To Zizek and his leftist coterie, you may as well be speaking a different language. If there is one thing that Islam understands, however, it is violence. This is because not only was Islam’s founder a violent man, but the religion itself grew and flourished through violence, not endless indiscriminate violence, but its economical and judicious application.

As the world’s foremost Leftist intellectual Slavoj Žižek is occasionally required to stir himself a bit and pull something out of the hat for his doting and easily impressed followers. The case of the Charlie Hebdo massacre is just such an occasion.
The key on these occasions is to let the most obvious things be said, and then deal your trump card on top of that pile. In recent days we’ve all heard a variety of opinion pieces and editorials in the mainstream media running along these rails:

The killers were not bad Muslims, just bad people.
The real tragedy would be if we didn’t double down on our great multicultural experiment.
Perhaps some things should be held sacred after all.

Then, when all that fluff has been kicked up and subsided, [along comes Žižek] to knock all that nonsense into a top hat and pull out his bunch of roses with this set up:

It effectively may appear that the split between the permissive First World and the fundamentalist reaction to it runs more and more along the lines of the opposition between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural wealth, and dedicating one’s life to some transcendent Cause. Is this antagonism not the one between what Nietzsche called ‘passive’ and ‘active’ nihilism? We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the struggle up to their self-destruction. William Butler Yeats’ Second Coming seems perfectly to render our present predicament: ‘The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Yes, his audience of comfortable cultural leftists, sipping their Chablis at dinner parties, have all felt that. But then along comes the cavalry and the coup de grace, delivered by their slobbish secular saint, telling them that their jadedness and passivity are the surest proofs of their moral authenticity:

However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers’ way of life. If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.

There you have it. The Kouachi borthers went to all that trouble to wipe out Charlie Hebdo’s editorial meeting and then die in a hail of lead because they lacked the conviction of the average comfortable leftist telling his Facebook friends that he, too, is Charlie. In the world of the hashtag, the warrior who lays down his life for his cause is merely a fake, his fanaticism a mere show to cover up the vacuum of doubt howling away beneath his avowed convictions. And the evidence of this? The nihilism of the Buddhists and the self-seclusion of the Amish!

If these Muslims really believed their shit, Zizek implies, they would be centred, confident individuals, able to laugh off insults to their Prophet—and possibly even rub themselves in bacon fat and swill Chablis. They might even be able to pen [little self-help books] like the Dali Lama, or teach classes of Islamic basket weaving while cracking jokes.

This kind of nonsense shows a marked misunderstanding of essential religious differences, not surprisingly as it is simply Leftist cultural relativism writ large; the soft totalitarianism of the present misunderstanding the hard totalitarianism of the past and the future. It also shows a complete ignorance of violence, seeing it as an isolated essence rather than as something that interpenetrates other aspects of reality.

Violence by its very nature has to be economical. Used indiscriminately, it loses its value and utility—in other words, it always exists in symbiosis. Only those who have used violence will understand this. To Zizek and his leftist coterie, you may as well be speaking a different language. If there is one thing that Islam understands, however, it is violence. This is because not only was Islam’s founder a violent man, but the religion itself grew and flourished through violence, not endless indiscriminate violence, but its economical and judicious application.

Unlike the West, where we have made a practice of cloaking our violence by denying it, exporting it, mechanizing it, or medicalizing it (as in executions of murderers), the Islamic world knows how to extract the most from it by tying it to terror. For the Muslim, violence without terror is wasted violence.

The key use of violence is to cow potential opponents, not kill them, as there are too many of them at any one time, and the more violence you use the more resistance you ultimately encounter.

To understand how violence works, you have to watch a sheepdog at work, shooting in to nip the heels of just the right recalcitrant sheep to drive the herd in the right direction. This was the purpose of the Charlie Hebdo attacks, to let a certain part of the establishment know—in particular that segment that had been placing its hopes in the [cultural genocide of Islam]—that the Muslims were not their sheep—to the contrary, they were the sheep of the Muslims.

Some will continue to bleat on that these terrorists—just like all the other terrorists we have seen—were not representative of Muslims in general. They can even produce examples of Muslims disowning these brutal acts. Yes, consciously, that may be possible, but there is also a subconscious level where the collective will manifests itself, where those that run together, even if they know nothing of each other, run together. Violence always exists in symbiosis. For Muslims, the acts of fanatics create a subtle glow of power that invests the entire group, and in which the temptation to bask is strong, especially for those in colonizing lands that they initially came to as underlings and inferiors.

No Comments on Jihad vs. McWorld

Type on the field below and hit Enter/Return to search